"You should only have a child if you personally will ensure as best as possible that it can receive appropriate care."
He probably knew a lot more about life than you do. Dan Quayle got blasted for his remarks on this subject, and you're comment is more severe than his were.
Proper care of a child involves teaching him to be open-minded and accepting of people who are different.
"in many ways, innovation and new ideas are not coming out like they used to."
In what ways? Like they used to, when?
"I would of included at least 10 more things but I'm a lazy bastard and I wrote the thing at nearly 3 A.M. before passing out on my desk."
Brilliant.
"try to honestly and truthfully discuss your ideas and wants for the future, because if no one talks about this sort of thing then things will just keep looking the same for the next decade without any real considerable change."
I'm here today to speak out in favor of shrimp bandages.
What do people have against shrimp? Is it because they're small? Should we also deny bandages to children? They're small, too.
We have bandages for people, bandages for dogs and bandages for horses, but some people think we should discriminate against shrimp. It's unfair, and I am outraged!
In racing, they call it a "fuel cell" and it's mandatory for most divisions. IMHO, all cars should use them.
I never heard that Ford had ever planned to use one in the Pinto. In fact, I'm not aware of any mass-produced cars that have them.
Re:Land of the "Free"!
on
3D Face Cameras
·
· Score: 1, Funny
This system should be implemented in England ASAP. Now that we know which country is the real harbor for terrorists, we must accumulate as much data as possible about those freedom-hating evil-doers. It will make our task of "draining the swamp" as simple as restoring order to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The reason that they're slow to market with it is to give Intel a chance to catch up to AMD. If Intel had taken the early lead, MS would have released by now.
"It happened because there was no alternative at the time! Had there been a reliable Solaris x86 port before 2003 there would never have been a Tadpole - companies would have used Intel based laptops and saved a fortune."
No, they still would have wanted a binary compatible machine.
"Aside from you and a handful of other PPC fetishists there is no market for what you're proposing."
PPC fetishist? WTF is that? I'm not even a PPC owner or user.
The PPC is still an important architecture and laptops are a desirable form factor. Saying that there's "absolutely zero" chance of them being married again is wrong.
"For one thing, how do you know that a Windows port would be easy for Microsoft?"
It was designed from the ground up with a hardware abstraction layer. They used to sell an (DEC)Alpha version.
"There is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to do that, because AMD is a perfectly good leverage tool."
Not really. Intel and AMD implement each others' instruction sets. MS has less control in that situation. AMD didn't need any assistance from MS when they produced their first x86 compatibles.
"And without Microsoft, there's no mainstream OS, and thus no market."
Linux is becoming more and more "mainstream", and other niches like portable OS/360 might already exist.
"I don't see a lot of people clamoring for PPC Linux laptops when x86 seems to be doing just fine."
Linux on laptops are not "doing just fine", IMHO. They tend to be a royal pain in the ass.
"Yes, and the cost of filling that niche was that the cheapest Tadpole is (or at least was when I last checked) an order of magnitude more expensive than the most expensive Thinkpad. Tadpole's filled a niche - namely Solaris software vendors selling very expensive software who needed a portable demonstration plaform, cost be damned."
Nevertheless, it *did* happen, so the parent's claim of "absolutely zero" is bogus.
"To the best of my knowledge there are no niches for a PPC Linux portable that costs far more than an otherwise identical IA-32 Linux portable (and they would, as the RRD cost would have to be spread over about ten units) - especially as Linux runs best on IA-32 where as Solaris, until recently, was only any good on Sparcs."
Some market research would be in order. On the surface I see that IBM has invested heavily in Linux as well as PPC. Maybe, instead of a portable workstation, the niche is a portable mainframe (VM/OS-360/Linux).
The Solaris market was pretty small too, but it didn't stop companies like Tadpole from making Sparc laptops.
Microsoft could easily port Windows to PPC and use it as leverage against Intel. If they added a cross-compiler to their dev tools, app developers could easily recompile for PPC.
"How many Linux geeks are there in the world who don't already own a wireless router?"
I wasn't asking about wireless routers, I was asking about the requirement of keeping a Windows box running to use the Nintendo wirelessly. The article has updated since my post to clear up this confusion.
"The turbo is not running off of unspent fuel (and if it were, some kind of system for preventing that.. say a turbo of some kind... would be appropriate)"
The fuel has been spent, but the energy hasn't all been harnessed. A "turbo" of some kind is indeed appropriate.
The turbo does create backpressure, but most of the power it uses comes from heat which would have been wasted, so it really is free*. It's much more efficient than a shaft driven blower.
*The free power is just for the blower. The extra power that it allows the engine to make is not free because the extra air gets mixed with extra fuel.
"They weren't certain soon enough. Obviously the hijackers made their moves before the passengers learned what the consequences of their inaction was."
They were certain soon enough to do some good for people and property on the ground, which is great. They were heroes.
"Had the passengers known that if these four men got into the cockpit they would all die, the four men would NOT have made it into the cockpit."
There are plenty of "if only" scenarios you could come up with, but you can't design security around wild assumptions like that.
Another thing you're overlooking is the makeup of the particular passenger list. How much good would a bunch of senior citizens on an Atlantic City charter flight be against a half dozen trained assassins?
I guess we could argue this back and forth 'til the cows come home. I still think the first rule of security is to close the door.
"But the people (victims) involved will never know with any certainty until after the fact if this is such a hijacking."
On that one flight on 9/11, they were certain and were able to make the right decision, but the outcome was still far worse than if the cockpit door had been locked. The earlier flights did not have the same information, but even if they had, they were still doomed, and there's no way of knowing whether they could have prevented the plane from hitting the tower or another chunk of Manhattan.
Once the bad guys have control of the plane, it really doesn't matter. If their intention is to kill you, you have already lost. Even if it's not, you could become the target of an F-16. If they plan to let you go, then you might get yourself killed by fighting them. Preventing them from getting control is what's key.
If they claim they'll kill every passenger unless you let them into the cockpit or take them to another country, you don't do it. By making it clear to hijackers that they will never get control of the plane, then all they can do is attempt to sneak a dangerous weapon thru relative high security checkpoints and try to kill up to 500 people while being assured of their own death or capture. A high-school football game would be an easier target.
"The plane didn't hit its target, and so killed only those on board rather than however many might have been in another skyscraper or strategic target."
Well, there were about 150 killed at the Pentagon. A 747 holds 3 times that. Just taking one out of the sky is pretty big.
"I'd say that was a pretty effective defense, and lowered the appeal of using the same tactic again."
I'd say that securing the cockpits was the bigger deterrent. If they thought they had a chance to get into the cockpit again, by sneaking in from the first row for example, they would be smarter about blocking passengers from rushing at them while they worked.
They will always have the element of surprise in their favor, which is why I think that the post I originally responded to is overrated. Vigilant passengers reacting to a situation aren't nearly as effective as having the pros being very careful about the basics.
The shameful part of it is that El Al (and probably others) had understood this stuff for 25 years. The White House, DoD and FAA were all aware that there was a possibility of this type of attack. Yet, they didn't fix the problem. Monday morning quarterbacking? No, the writing was on the wall.
The government blames the mistakes on a lack of power to spy on its citizens and to compel journalists to reveal anonymous sources. It doesn't need more powers. It needs to listen to people like Richard Clarke and tell people like Karl Rove to shut up.
"I was under the impression it all lasted at least several minutes "
I was referring to the first takeover (by the bad guys). In that very short period of time, the plane's fate was virtually guaranteed.
"Then everybody's going to get killed."
Well that's counterproductive. Many hijackings have ended without loss of innocent life.
"For example, sneaking into the cockpit might work"
That's the point. On 9/11, the terrorists' targets were on the ground, so they chose flights with very few passengers to stand in their way. Now let's say that they chose full 747s with the simpler plan of just killing everyone onboard. With access to the cockpit, there are probably a number of ways to quickly disable or destroy critical controls.
"And yes, the cockpit doors are now locked." Right, and I believe that is the single biggest improvement they could have made. Confiscating nail clippers and the like is dumb. A clever person could easily smuggle a ceramic blade onboard. Racial profiling and no-fly lists are next to worthless. We still hear stories about suspicious people (Cat Stevens?) getting on planes and US Senators being denied (Democrats anyway.)
Slashdot Mirror
"You should only have a child if you personally will ensure as best as possible that it can receive appropriate care."
He probably knew a lot more about life than you do. Dan Quayle got blasted for his remarks on this subject, and you're comment is more severe than his were.
Proper care of a child involves teaching him to be open-minded and accepting of people who are different.
You have to ask for two at a time. It's not a bug.
I gave up trying to parse /. comments like that one a long time ago. I think they might be part of an enemy plot to cause mass dyslexia.
"in many ways, innovation and new ideas are not coming out like they used to."
In what ways? Like they used to, when?
"I would of included at least 10 more things but I'm a lazy bastard and I wrote the thing at nearly 3 A.M. before passing out on my desk."
Brilliant.
"try to honestly and truthfully discuss your ideas and wants for the future, because if no one talks about this sort of thing then things will just keep looking the same for the next decade without any real considerable change."
You're a technologist or a marriage counselor?
He's using it in a new way.
s/matzoh meal/kasha/
Profiteers
Euthanizing
Throngs of
Animals
I'm here today to speak out in favor of shrimp bandages.
What do people have against shrimp? Is it because they're small? Should we also deny bandages to children? They're small, too.
We have bandages for people, bandages for dogs and bandages for horses, but some people think we should discriminate against shrimp. It's unfair, and I am outraged!
-Emily Litella
"cock-smoking teabagger"
African or European?
Yep, you're right.
"lined the gas tank with a plastic bladder"
In racing, they call it a "fuel cell" and it's mandatory for most divisions. IMHO, all cars should use them.
I never heard that Ford had ever planned to use one in the Pinto. In fact, I'm not aware of any mass-produced cars that have them.
This system should be implemented in England ASAP. Now that we know which country is the real harbor for terrorists, we must accumulate as much data as possible about those freedom-hating evil-doers. It will make our task of "draining the swamp" as simple as restoring order to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanks for setting me "straight".
The reason that they're slow to market with it is to give Intel a chance to catch up to AMD. If Intel had taken the early lead, MS would have released by now.
"It happened because there was no alternative at the time! Had there been a reliable Solaris x86 port before 2003 there would never have been a Tadpole - companies would have used Intel based laptops and saved a fortune."
No, they still would have wanted a binary compatible machine.
"Aside from you and a handful of other PPC fetishists there is no market for what you're proposing."
PPC fetishist? WTF is that? I'm not even a PPC owner or user.
The PPC is still an important architecture and laptops are a desirable form factor. Saying that there's "absolutely zero" chance of them being married again is wrong.
"For one thing, how do you know that a Windows port would be easy for Microsoft?"
It was designed from the ground up with a hardware abstraction layer. They used to sell an (DEC)Alpha version.
"There is absolutely no reason for Microsoft to do that, because AMD is a perfectly good leverage tool."
Not really. Intel and AMD implement each others' instruction sets. MS has less control in that situation. AMD didn't need any assistance from MS when they produced their first x86 compatibles.
"And without Microsoft, there's no mainstream OS, and thus no market."
Linux is becoming more and more "mainstream", and other niches like portable OS/360 might already exist.
"I don't see a lot of people clamoring for PPC Linux laptops when x86 seems to be doing just fine."
Linux on laptops are not "doing just fine", IMHO. They tend to be a royal pain in the ass.
"Yes, and the cost of filling that niche was that the cheapest Tadpole is (or at least was when I last checked) an order of magnitude more expensive than the most expensive Thinkpad. Tadpole's filled a niche - namely Solaris software vendors selling very expensive software who needed a portable demonstration plaform, cost be damned."
Nevertheless, it *did* happen, so the parent's claim of "absolutely zero" is bogus.
"To the best of my knowledge there are no niches for a PPC Linux portable that costs far more than an otherwise identical IA-32 Linux portable (and they would, as the RRD cost would have to be spread over about ten units) - especially as Linux runs best on IA-32 where as Solaris, until recently, was only any good on Sparcs."
Some market research would be in order. On the surface I see that IBM has invested heavily in Linux as well as PPC. Maybe, instead of a portable workstation, the niche is a portable mainframe (VM/OS-360/Linux).
The Solaris market was pretty small too, but it didn't stop companies like Tadpole from making Sparc laptops.
Microsoft could easily port Windows to PPC and use it as leverage against Intel. If they added a cross-compiler to their dev tools, app developers could easily recompile for PPC.
"How many Linux geeks are there in the world who don't already own a wireless router?"
I wasn't asking about wireless routers, I was asking about the requirement of keeping a Windows box running to use the Nintendo wirelessly. The article has updated since my post to clear up this confusion.
There's not much info in the article. Is this some Windows-only kludge?
"The turbo is not running off of unspent fuel (and if it were, some kind of system for preventing that.. say a turbo of some kind... would be appropriate)"
The fuel has been spent, but the energy hasn't all been harnessed. A "turbo" of some kind is indeed appropriate.
The turbo does create backpressure, but most of the power it uses comes from heat which would have been wasted, so it really is free*. It's much more efficient than a shaft driven blower.
*The free power is just for the blower. The extra power that it allows the engine to make is not free because the extra air gets mixed with extra fuel.
"They weren't certain soon enough. Obviously the hijackers made their moves before the passengers learned what the consequences of their inaction was."
They were certain soon enough to do some good for people and property on the ground, which is great. They were heroes.
"Had the passengers known that if these four men got into the cockpit they would all die, the four men would NOT have made it into the cockpit."
There are plenty of "if only" scenarios you could come up with, but you can't design security around wild assumptions like that.
Another thing you're overlooking is the makeup of the particular passenger list. How much good would a bunch of senior citizens on an Atlantic City charter flight be against a half dozen trained assassins?
I guess we could argue this back and forth 'til the cows come home. I still think the first rule of security is to close the door.
"But the people (victims) involved will never know with any certainty until after the fact if this is such a hijacking."
On that one flight on 9/11, they were certain and were able to make the right decision, but the outcome was still far worse than if the cockpit door had been locked. The earlier flights did not have the same information, but even if they had, they were still doomed, and there's no way of knowing whether they could have prevented the plane from hitting the tower or another chunk of Manhattan.
Once the bad guys have control of the plane, it really doesn't matter. If their intention is to kill you, you have already lost. Even if it's not, you could become the target of an F-16. If they plan to let you go, then you might get yourself killed by fighting them. Preventing them from getting control is what's key.
If they claim they'll kill every passenger unless you let them into the cockpit or take them to another country, you don't do it. By making it clear to hijackers that they will never get control of the plane, then all they can do is attempt to sneak a dangerous weapon thru relative high security checkpoints and try to kill up to 500 people while being assured of their own death or capture. A high-school football game would be an easier target.
"The plane didn't hit its target, and so killed only those on board rather than however many might have been in another skyscraper or strategic target."
Well, there were about 150 killed at the Pentagon. A 747 holds 3 times that. Just taking one out of the sky is pretty big.
"I'd say that was a pretty effective defense, and lowered the appeal of using the same tactic again."
I'd say that securing the cockpits was the bigger deterrent. If they thought they had a chance to get into the cockpit again, by sneaking in from the first row for example, they would be smarter about blocking passengers from rushing at them while they worked.
They will always have the element of surprise in their favor, which is why I think that the post I originally responded to is overrated. Vigilant passengers reacting to a situation aren't nearly as effective as having the pros being very careful about the basics.
The shameful part of it is that El Al (and probably others) had understood this stuff for 25 years. The White House, DoD and FAA were all aware that there was a possibility of this type of attack. Yet, they didn't fix the problem. Monday morning quarterbacking? No, the writing was on the wall.
The government blames the mistakes on a lack of power to spy on its citizens and to compel journalists to reveal anonymous sources. It doesn't need more powers. It needs to listen to people like Richard Clarke and tell people like Karl Rove to shut up.
"I was under the impression it all lasted at least several minutes "
I was referring to the first takeover (by the bad guys). In that very short period of time, the plane's fate was virtually guaranteed.
"Then everybody's going to get killed."
Well that's counterproductive. Many hijackings have ended without loss of innocent life.
"For example, sneaking into the cockpit might work"
That's the point. On 9/11, the terrorists' targets were on the ground, so they chose flights with very few passengers to stand in their way. Now let's say that they chose full 747s with the simpler plan of just killing everyone onboard. With access to the cockpit, there are probably a number of ways to quickly disable or destroy critical controls.
"And yes, the cockpit doors are now locked."
Right, and I believe that is the single biggest improvement they could have made. Confiscating nail clippers and the like is dumb. A clever person could easily smuggle a ceramic blade onboard. Racial profiling and no-fly lists are next to worthless. We still hear stories about suspicious people (Cat Stevens?) getting on planes and US Senators being denied (Democrats anyway.)